The Instigator
Pr0xy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
cakerman
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Abortion should be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
cakerman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,064 times Debate No: 104280
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Pr0xy

Pro

For illegalization of abortion, including in cases in which the mother is raped. I am only for abortion when the baby is a threat to the mother's life, not health. First round is for opponent to accept the challenge, second is reasoning why we are against/for, third, 4th, and 5th are refuting arguments.
cakerman

Con

I accept. Good luck, let's just agree on one definition

Abortion --- the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

just so nothing gets misinterpreted here
Debate Round No. 1
Pr0xy

Pro

I am against abortion because it's just plain murder. A human fetus is simply a human being at a very early stage of it's life. It's not a woman's right to end a humans life, it's not about the woman at all. Every human being has a an equal right to life. Just because you're still in the womb doesn't determine the value of you life. Killing a human being just because it is "inconvenient" to you, is absolutely ridiculous. And if the mother is raped and is impregnated, the child should be born. The source of the pregnancy and the actual child are two completely different things. It's obviously a horrible thing to happen to a woman, but that doesn't justify the death of an unborn person.
cakerman

Con

I am pro on abortion for a few different reasons

1. Historical context

Abortion is nearly as old as civilization is. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, although earlier abortion was primarily practiced via extensive physical labor. Assuming we are talking about legality in The United States, the historical context here is a bit different considering how young the country is. In America, abortion was legal in the country's infancy but was illegalized, one of the reasons was due to a lack of desire to have the population dominated by the children of immigrants, the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent “untrained” practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees. The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. By 1910 all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor’s judgment, to save the woman’s life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a “physicians-only” practice. As you and I are aware the ruling on abortion being illegal was overturned in 1973 with Roe V. Wade and is now constitutionally justified in the united states, so long as it's performed by a trained medical practitioner.

2. Consequences of illegal abortion

The consequences for making abortion legal are only bad to America's citizens and result in more death than legal abortion. Before roe v wade it's estimated that 1.2 million women would seek out abortions per year, and be forced to get illegal, or "back-alley" abortions, which resulted in many thousands of deaths of women and their fetuses.

3. Human rights

You would call it a human right to force the woman to have an unwanted child, I would call that oppression. By taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not she must have a child regardless of the circumstance, you effectively oppress the woman by giving her fewer rights than the fetus that is using her organs to sustain itself. There are laws put in place that say that no one can use your organs or blood, regardless if you are dead or living, and regardless of how many people it would benefit or even save. Giving a fetus unlimited rights to use a woman's organs without her consent effectively gives a dead person more rights than a pregnant mother, and that isn't (in my opinion) how we should treat it.

4. Faults with contraception

A common argument presented within the pro-life community is "Why don't you just use a form of contraception?" and the answer is quite simple. Contraception fails and fails a lot more than most people would think.


s://www.guttmacher.org...; alt="Image result for rates of contraceptive failure" />
I think this graph portrays the common methods of birth control and their rates of failure very well.

In conclusion

I believe that legal abortion, while somewhat immoral, actually provides us the benefit of having a safe and effective way of terminating a pregnancy that doesn't result in countless deaths and medical complications.
Debate Round No. 2
Pr0xy

Pro

1. It doesn't matter for how long we've done it, it's still wrong.
Jesus Christ, you libs really like to pull up history a lot. So what that a hundreds( and even thousands) ago we did abortions? Back the then the world was in a lot worse shape than we are now. Now, everyone has equal rights. Much of
this stuff in the first paragraph does not even matter to us right now.
2.I don't understand how it's the our fault for women getting an illegal abortion, it's illegal.
If a woman is pregnant, and is not our fault. It is not our responsibility to make sure a woman does not get pregnant, it's the woman's. Like I saw a little down the page, the woman knows the risk, yet takes it anyway.

3.It is not oppression, and it's not a woman's right.
If a woman does not want to have a baby, why is she having sex in the first place? It is not my fault women want to have sex, they KNOW the risk of getting pregnant, they KNOW the ways to prevent it, and the best way is called abstinence. It's not that hard for a woman to not have a child.
4.Actually, the rates of contraception prevalence is significantly higher than what most people think.
The rate of contraception prevalence is at a solid almost 80%, but if people would use protection CORRECTLY, it would
be even higher. The rate of women getting unwanted pregnancies and NOT using contraception is at a 10.6%.And I didn't see the USA on that statistics chart. These are all from third world or countries in a much worse situation than we are.
cakerman

Con

I am against abortion because it's just plain murder.


So what would call all the embedded zygotes that fail to implant? Would you call a zygote failing to embed a tragedy? Would you consider a miscarriage to be on the same level of abortion? (estimates are around 1 in 6 pregnancies ending in miscarriage, mostly going unnoticed)


A human fetus is simply a human being at a very early stage of it's life.


Relating to my last point, so are fertilized zygotes that don't embed.


It's not a woman's right to end a humans life, it's not about the woman at all.


You are absolutely right, a woman doesn't have the right to end a human being's life, but the woman does have the right to not have a child if she does not want to. The choice is more about the woman than it is about the fetus, because, if you say that the fetuses opinion matters more than the woman's opinion does that automatically make every fetus worth more than it's own mother?


Just because you're still in the womb doesn't determine the value of you life.


What exactly does determine the value of a human life then? That quote and you saying that every human has an equal right to life are conflicting statements because you imply that human beings cannot be assigned an intrinsic value to determine their eligibility to live but then say that being in the womb doesn't determine that value.


And if the mother is raped and is impregnated, the child should be born.


This, I find to be the cruelest of your statements, in fact, that statement is more evil in nature than advocating for abortion. To say if a woman is raped she is forced without any input, to accept the pregnancy and later have that child and take care of it, in itself is undermining the value of a woman's life. The way you have worded your response, it implies that repopulation above all is more important than anybody's opinion, whether they like it or not. Your argument also cancels out the immorality of abortion by forcing the reality of pregnancies resulting from rape being mandatorily kept, or facing a murder charge.

3.It is not oppression, and it's not a woman's right.
If a woman does not want to have a baby, why is she having sex in the first place? It is not my fault women want to have sex, they KNOW the risk of getting pregnant, they KNOW the ways to prevent it, and the best way is called abstinence. It's not that hard for a woman to not have a child.

If you would have taken a quick look at the graph I provided in the comments section (as it didn't appear in my argument like I wanted it to) you would have observed that abstinence is, in fact, one of the WORST methods of contraception.

Jesus Christ, you libs really like to pull up history a lot.

Passive aggressive insults, also I don't really consider myself a lib, sorry.

2.I don't understand how it's the our fault for women getting an illegal abortion, it's illegal.
If a woman is pregnant, and is not our fault. It is not our responsibility to make sure a woman does not get pregnant, it's the woman's.

It's not "our" fault that the woman gets an illegal abortion, but it IS "our" fault that that same woman doesn't have the same healthy, sterile, and professional environment in which to get the procedure. (theoretically, if abortion were to be outlawed) If it is not "our" responsibility to make sure that the woman doesn't get pregnant I guess your statement about how babies should be born regardless as to what the woman says even if resulting from rape makes more sense. The only problem is that a woman cannot feasibly avoid getting pregnant from rape, quite frankly the logic to the statement doesn't make much sense. If you could expand upon this that would help.

If a woman does not want to have a baby, why is she having sex in the first place?

Because any woman in the United States of America has the right to have sex with whoever she chooses, regardless as to whether she has the desire to get pregnant. This statement conflicts with your other statement about it not being oppression, you are oppressing a woman's right to have sex, but I don't see any statements about men not being allowed to have sex.


4.Actually, the rates of contraception prevalence is significantly higher than what most people think.
The rate of contraception prevalence is at a solid almost 80%, but if people would use protection CORRECTLY, it would
be even higher. The rate of women getting unwanted pregnancies and NOT using contraception is at a 10.6%.And I didn't see the USA on that statistics chart. These are all from third world or countries in a much worse situation than we are.

https://www.guttmacher.org...

Also, not every country in the world is worse off than the United States.
Debate Round No. 3
Pr0xy

Pro

1. Zygotes are microscopic eukaryote cells, and have not even begun to or just started to grow.
They have merely just been fertilized. Definition of abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Miscarriage is definitely not on the same level as abortion, almost all of the miscarriages that have been documented, the mother wanted the child. It is not on the same level of abortion because it is not deliberate, and much of the time not the mothers fault.

2. So you say that it's not the woman's right to end a human life, yet you say that it's ok to kill it if she does not want it?
You have contradicted yourself here. The fetus and the woman have equal rights, and the law says that you don't murder.
Why is the choice about the woman? Is it because she can talk? What if the fetus could talk? He would likely say that it would
not want die. If you had a disease, and you had to have a machine or else you would die, would you still be viable for life, just because you're not in the womb and have been educated and fully developed?

3.I apologize, as I should not have used the term 'value of life', instead I should have used 'the right to live'.
I don't mean that we should make a chart and rate people according to who they are and what they are like.

4. Like I said, no the woman's choice to kill a human.
Why would it be our fault that the woman doesn't have a healthy way to perform the procedure?
Do you know a way to prevent you and your child from dying due to illegal abortion? Don't have it, instead, have
the child, and put he/she up for adoption. This has proved to be a great method of reserving financial status without
the deaths of thousands of babies.

5.The source of the pregnancy and the pregnancy are completely different.
It is obviously a HORRIBLE thing to happen to a woman, and the person responsible
should be hunted down, castrated and/or killed. I have never states that this was ok.
However, if the woman was impregnated to due this, the child has rights. The child deserves to be born.
However, I also think that there should be benefits (financial) from the government if a woman was ever in this situation.
However that's not what we're talking about.

6.You're correct, it is a woman's right to have sex.
It's also a woman's responsibility to be careful.
I am not oppressing a woman's right to have sex,
I am merely asking a question. Why? Why would a woman(who does not want to have a child),
have sex? Again, they are allowed to have sex, doesn't mean they should unless they want a child.
If a woman has sex and gets pregnant, that's on her.

7. 'Jesus Christ, you lib's really like to bring up history a lot.'
Didn't mean it as an insult, and I apologize if you are offended.
I also apologize for assuming you are a liberal, although you seem to be
leaning towards the left.

8. Never said that every country is worse off than the united states, just said that we are in a better financial situation(
besides the trillions of dollars in debt we are) than them.
cakerman

Con


1. Zygotes are microscopic eukaryote cells, and have not even begun to or just started to grow.

They have merely just been fertilized.

This is true, but there is significant scientific backing to prove that these microscopic eukaryotes are indeed human life.


2. So you say that it's not the woman's right to end a human life, yet you say that it's ok to kill it if she does not want it?

A woman is most definitely not allowed to go out and kill somebody, but it is her given right to abort a non-self-sufficient fetus (before 27-28 weeks) if she does not want said fetus.


If you had a disease, and you had to have a machine or else you would die, would you still be viable for life, just because you're not in the womb and have been educated and fully developed?

I can only assume you're describing a persistent vegetative state, and in that case, that person's viability for life is not as great as other people's. Every person on earth is not equal in terms of the viability of life, for example, if you are hooked up to a machine that kept you alive you would not be viable without it such as a fetus wouldn't be viable without the support of its mother.

Why would it be our fault that the woman doesn't have a healthy way to perform the procedure?

Because if this issue were to ever pop up on a ballot, I'm sure you would vote in favor of a prohibition on abortion, hence making it your (and everyone else that voted alongside you) fault that the woman does not have a safe, sterile, and professional environment to receive the procedure.


Don't have it, instead, have the child, and put he/she up for adoption


https://www.theguardian.com...

The adoption system in America is essentially broken, and adoption is a slowly worsening issue, and with an outlaw on abortion, the problem would only exacerbate itself even further.

It is obviously a HORRIBLE thing to happen to a woman, and the person responsible should be hunted down, castrated and/or killed.

I would say that supporting the death penalty for rapists is the antithesis of pro-life.

However, if the woman was impregnated to due this, the child has rights. The child deserves to be born.

The fetus doesn't "deserve" anything, the fetus isn't even aware that it is alive, let alone be aware if it were being aborted.


6.You're correct, it is a woman's right to have sex.
It's also a woman's responsibility to be careful.
I am not oppressing a woman's right to have sex,
I am merely asking a question. Why? Why would a woman(who does not want to have a child),
have sex? Again, they are allowed to have sex, doesn't mean they should unless they want a child.
If a woman has sex and gets pregnant, that's on her.

That statement supports forced abstinence for women who don't want children but have sex, which oppresses their natural born rights to have intercourse whenever and with whoever they please.

If:

A) It is a woman's right to have sex

B) A woman shouldn't have sex unless they want children

Then:

You effective oppress women who have no desire for children but a desire for sex.

Also, you ask why would a woman who didn't want children have sex? Well, that's a simple question, human beings are one of the only species that have sex for pleasure and not reproduction, alongside Pigs, (arguably) Dolphins, and a few species of Primate.


8. Never said that every country is worse off than the united states, just said that we are in a better financial situation(
besides the trillions of dollars in debt we are) than them.

Switzerland has been nominated as a more competitive economy than America multiple times.

Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cakerman 8 months ago
cakerman
@bigdebate

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all natural BORN rights.

Also, human beings have morals without a book and a religion telling us so.
Posted by bigdebate 8 months ago
bigdebate
Well... first off, nobody defined what "illegal" means...
Secondly, in the US Constitution, abortion is illegal. The US Constitution applies "to ourselves and our posterity" the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So, according to US Law, a fetus, which is believed to be alive at conception (the science proves this, and most scientists actually do hold this view) cannot be murdered because the posterity of an American citizen is afforded all the rights of the Constitution.
As an aside. The whole debate over whether abortion is "wrong" is a religious and philosophical debate and is totally different than the legality of something. Laws are not morals, they are laws. I believe that murdering is wrong, therefore, abortion is wrong. It does not matter who did it in the past, murder is still murder. Murder, however, is much different than killing. Killing is simply taking life. Murder is premeditated and planned out. An abortion is murder (it's premeditated), but a miscarriage kills (is not premeditated). Since I derive my morals from the Bible, I believe abortion to be wrong. The Bible does state that we are alive in the womb, and murdering someone violates the ten commandments. However, unless both parties agree to a specific moral system, it is rather pointless to debate whether some moral actions are wrong and others are right. There is only one moral code that matters, and it is the Biblical one.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by cakerman 9 months ago
cakerman
the only problem I have with that statement, Jim is that 88% of criminologists do not believe that capital punishment acts as an effective deterrent to crime
Posted by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
Honestly, while the idea of giving the death penalty to rapists may seem a bit harsh, it technically would probably reduce the amount of rape. Although it looks to go against the "pro-life" message, theirs a clear difference between the two in that a human fetus is innocent of his/her situation, and the rapist isn't.
Posted by cakerman 9 months ago
cakerman
The graph didn't show up properly, here's a link

https://www.guttmacher.org...
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
The two main issues to tackle are:
1) does the fetus have rights, and
2) if so, does it also have the right to remain in the womb against the mothers wishes.
A society that offers no good options or support to a pregnant mother, can not ask it to have it against her will. Abortion is but a symptom of a greater problem, fix the problem and the symptoms go away.
And that problem is.........................................................Does anyone know the number one cause of abortion?
Posted by Shad0wXx 9 months ago
Shad0wXx
@canis Just because people do something, doesn"t automatically make it good. ISIs has many supporters, but terrorism is not good.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
Abortion is good..Otherwise people would not chose it.
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 9 months ago
SuperAwesomeMusician
Haha this debate got my attention until I realized that you were against abortion. I'm looking forward to watching this debate. ^^
Posted by SuperAwesomeMusician 9 months ago
SuperAwesomeMusician
Haha this debate got my attention until I realized that you were against abortion. I'm looking forward to watching this debate. ^^
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
Pr0xycakermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with Pro, he simply just doesn't have the skills needed to win this debate. Conduct and S/G are tied, and sources go to Con for offering stats of contraceptives and about countrys' productivity. Con wins arguments here mainly because I felt Pro didn't know enough/didn't communicate his point well enough to put up a sound defense. While I don't agree with Con, he has some very good arguments on how the adoption system and contraception fails, how women turn to illegal abortion, and how woman have a right to be banged. Pro makes some good comebacks, such as it may be a woman's choice to have sex but not take life, but I felt his delivery was off. I think he also backs up protecting the life of rape-conceived humans decently, but it sounded a little crude to "kill the rapists." Overall, I feel the points of both sides were about equal in their argumentative points, but cakerman was just the better debater. God job to Pr0xy, better job to Con.